Legal Ruling 1954-122
California Franchise Tax Board
Legal Ruling No. 122
April 6, 1954
Student attending college in California, but domiciled elsewhere, is not a resident of this State in the particular circumstances.
Taxpayer resided in Connecticut with her parents until June, 1946, at which time she entered California to attend a State University. She was registered as a nonresident student from September, 1946, through June, 1950, and paid nonresident tuition. Her living quarters were retained for her in her parents' home and she returned there during vacation periods. She maintained bank accounts, voted, and filed her Federal income tax returns in Connecticut during the entire period. She was offered a teaching position in the spring of 1950 which taxpayer accepted. She returned to her parents' home for the summer and reentered California in September, 1950, to begin teaching. Advice is requested on taxpayer's resident status for California income tax purposes.
The payment of nonresident tuition fees is not conclusive for income tax purposes; the test for tax purposes is physical presence for other than a temporary or transitory purpose. (Personal Income Tax Law, Section 17014). In the past, nondomiciliary students who entered California for extended study have been deemed within the State for other than temporary or transitory purposes and consequently taxed as residents. However, presence for the sole purpose of school attendance may not be sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute presence for other than temporary or transitory purposes. Regulation 17013-15(b) indicates that the facts of each case must be examined to determine the character of the stay.
In the present case a presumption of residence is raised by an aggregate of nine months presence during each of the taxable years 1946 through 1950. However, taxpayer has overcome this presumption by showing that she absented herself from the state of domicile for a single educational purpose and only so long as was necessary to accomplish that purpose, and further that her family, social and business interests all remained in Connecticut, to which state she returned at every opportunity.
Taxpayer should be treated as a resident beginning in September, 1950, as her employment within this state at that time indicates a purpose not temporary or transitory in character.